Tag: climategate

Major Climate Crisis Study Retracted Over “Inaccuracies” As Doom Narrative Collapses

A widely hyped climate-doom study published in Nature in April 2024, and then amplified by left-wing corporate media outlets (CNN, Bloomberg, you name it), desperate to push the “green” narrative and weirdly obsessed with driving Americans into a state of severe climate shock, has now been embarrassingly retracted.

On Wednesday, Nature retracted the study titled “The economic commitment of climate change“ after economists discovered that flawed data from Uzbekistan had heavily skewed the results.

If Uzbekistan data were excluded, the paper’s eye-popping forecast of a 62% collapse in global economic output by 2100 under unabated emissions would only fall to 23%.

The retraction should intensify the debate over how accurate long-term climate forecasts actually are – and by our estimates, Al Gore, thirty years and counting, is still very wrong.

For 20 months, the study was touted by Bloomberg, CNN, Forbes, and countless MSM outlets, and even cited by the World Bank and the OECD. This helped manufacture a wildly misleading narrative of an impending climate catastrophe.

The study’s authors, led by Leonie Wenz of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, and Maximilian Kotz, a postdoctoral researcher at the institute, wrote in a retraction notice that the issues were “too substantial for a correction,” forcing the paper’s withdrawal.”

Keep reading

They have been pushing for carbon labelling on food for years – why?

Carbon food labels are rapidly moving from experimental initiatives to a mainstream trend, with significant developments indicating they are poised to become widespread. The global market for carbon-labelled packaged meals is projected to reach USD 1,252 million by 2035, reflecting a growing consumer demand for climate-conscious food choices.

In a move that could reshape the food industry’s supply chains, Unilever announced in June a comprehensive plan to introduce carbon footprint labels on all 70,000 of its products, a major step toward transparency and sustainability, though a specific timeline for full rollout has not been clarified.

While the UK government currently has no plans for mandatory eco-labelling, industry-led schemes are gaining momentum, with companies like Oatly, Quorn and Just Eat already implementing carbon labels on products and menus.

Related: These Food Companies Put Their Carbon Footprint On Their Packaging, Ecochain, 25 June 2025

Voluntary initiatives are expanding across various sectors, including universities (e.g., Bournemouth University Food) and event venues (e.g., ExCeL London), where carbon footprint information is being integrated into menus and food service.

And carbon labelling fever is hitting Europe as well.  As part of its Single Market for Green Products Initiative, which was launched in 2013, the European Commission is advancing a mandatory Product Environmental Footprint (“PEF”) labelling scheme to standardise carbon and environmental data across food and other goods, creating a unified system across the European Union. 

PEF is supported by Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (“PEFCRs”), which standardise calculations for specific product groups such as beer, clothing, IT equipment, leather and pet food.

The pilot phase of the PEF ran from 2013 to 2018.  From 2019, the project has been in the “transition phase” focusing on monitoring the implementation of existing PEFCRs, developing new ones and advancing methodological developments. The “transition phase” is expected to be concluded this year.  “After the transition phase, the [Environmental Footprint] methods are expected to enter a phase of more stability and gradually wider application,” the European Commission says.

Keep reading

He Says No Threat Exists, Then Tries to Block the Sun

Gates Tones Down the Scare Talk, Then Reaches for the Sky Controls

For years, Bill Gates pushed the idea that climate change ranks among the biggest challenges facing mankind. He wrote books about it and toured the world, urging nations to spend trillions on new energy systems. He stood with the crowd that warned of danger at every turn.

Then, without warning, he released a memo claiming that climate change won’t end humanity, calling for calm thinking and saying fear does more harm than good.

People who never bought into climate panic thought he had finally caught up with reality.

Afterwards, they watched him push the strangest idea yet: supporting research to dim the sun. Reports laid it out in detail, while describing his plan to scatter sunlight away from Earth.

What better way of describing a man who now downplays climate danger: funding a plan meant for a world on the verge of collapse.

Like Stephen Curry switching hands, it reads like someone who switched talking points without changing direction.

He Calms His Voice Yet Builds a Project Fit for Panic

“Stop panicking!” cries the man who panicked for years. He is claiming the world will adapt, while telling leaders to focus on fighting poverty and disease instead of chasing perfect temperature goals. A message that many people believe sounds reasonable.

Hidden behind that tone is an idea borrowed from a plot in a climate disaster movie. Solar geoengineering aims to weaken sunlight, an idea Gates has backed for nearly 20 years through scientists who want to spray particles into the sky to reflect the light. Gates supports research that many climate activists call reckless.

A strange picture emerges from his pivot: he’s telling people to relax while he pays for a project built for a world on fire.

As his words drift one way, while his money drifts the other, what path do you think people will follow?

Earth Needs Steady Light More Than It Needs Tech Experiments

Plants don’t vote, trees don’t care about debates, and algae in the ocean don’t follow climate politics. There’s one significant thing they share: they all need sunlight.

Algae alone produce a large share of the oxygen we breathe. That tiny life floating near the surface depends on a stable source of light to survive. Shade the planet, and algae shut down, breaking food chains, changing fish stocks, and sliding the weather balance out of whack. Heck, even a slight drop in sunlight worsens harvests, shifts rainfall, and hurts the poorest regions first.

Gates fixes software issues with updates, solving them in days, while mistakes with sunlight can last for generations, if we’re lucky.

His plan treats the Sun like a variable light switch he can dial back when he feels like it.

Keep reading

New Scientific Findings Expose the Hoax Behind Meat Eating Climate Alarm

Sensational new scientific findings have blown holes in the climate hoax opinion that humans need to give up eating meat to save the planet. The effect of methane (CH4), a minor ‘greenhouse’ gas, have been grossly exaggerated to suggest that animal farming poses a significant threat to the global climate. But the invented threat relies on multiplying by around ten the length of time that CH4 stays in the atmosphere – an invention under Global Warming Potential 100 know as GWP100 that is in widespread use in activist circles, including the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At current emission levels, five Italian scientists predict 54% less warming than under GWP100, while small decreasing emissions, possible with some changes in animal diets, produce only tiny amounts of claimed warming.

Load the vital protein-stuffed steaks on the barbie and celebrate the removal of another key plank in the climate hoax backing the ultimate luxury fantasy of Net Zero. You can go grubbing around the tropics for ‘superfood’ berries and grains, but meat is the core component of the evolved human diet. So much so that one fears the natural Darwinian process will in future start to reduce the numbers of weedy and increasingly feeble-minded individuals trying to get by on only ‘vegan’ sustenance.

Despite its obvious flaw, meat haters have persisted in using GWP100 to throw fuel on the climate crisis fire. But the fakery is exposed by the Italian scientists’ work, which accounts for methane’s short time in the atmosphere and shows large reductions in claimed warming at current levels, and even some cooling with relatively modest reductions.

Nevertheless, the Italian scientists break from the ‘consensus’ pack only up to a point, since they term all the greenhouses gases as climate ‘pollutants’ rather than trace atmospheric gases essential for all life on Earth. A rising methane emission pathway is presented showing little change from the proposed warming under GWP100, but the scenario depends on agricultural emissions rising an improbable three times faster than recent growth would suggest. Methane emissions may rise in future, but, if the need is felt, they can be controlled by a number of natural means. The cow produces protein rich natural food for humans by eating inedible grasses and vegetation that leads to enteric fermentation in its stomach. Reductions in the resulting gases between 10–30% have been achieved by non-chemical means such as rotating diet optimisation, selective breeding with animals with lower emissions and changes in husbandry techniques.

In essence, the new science paper shows that GWP100 gets it hopelessly wrong when it is used to promote the climate crisis hoax. Anti-meat eating has long been a fad of extreme environmentalism but, under cover of the command-and-control Net Zero project, it has been introduced into the mainstream. The new science findings suggest that wiping out methane emissions from livestock farming is unnecessary. If CH4 is your thing and you fear the addition of tiny amounts of cow burps and farts into the atmosphere, you need do little more than keep meat consumption at its current level. However, that might not be that relevant anyway since most methane emissions arise from a variety of sources and are subject to large natural variations.

Keep reading

Bovaer has been suspended in Norway and Sweden

3-Nitrooxypropanol (“3-NOP”), marketed as Bovaer, is, so it is claimed, a feed additive used to reduce methane emissions in ruminants.  UK residents will recall the suspicious product from an Arla trial of feeding it to dairy cows that began in November 2024.

Peter Imanuelsen gives an update on developments in Sweden.  It seems the Bovaer project has come to an end in Sweden, he says.

The largest dairy supplier in Norway has suspended the use of Bovaer after multiple reports from Denmark of collapsing cows.  Now, it seems like the Bovaer project has come to an end in neighbouring Sweden. 

The dairy producer Gäsene has now ended their Bovaer project, the last remaining dairy producer that still used Bovaer in the country. Earlier, the dairy producer Norrmejerier discontinued their ”climate milk.” So now there is no known dairy producers giving their cows Bovaer in Sweden anymore. This is very telling…

Keep reading

US & Qatar Force EU Climate Policy U-Turn – End of the ESG Era?

While former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calls for a fight against climate-driven global apocalypse at COP30, Brussels is being forced into political restraint by pressure from the US and Qatar. On the horizon, the end of the EU’s grand climate machinations is becoming visible.

November 13, 2025, could mark a turning point in European Union history. We may have witnessed the beginning of the end of European climate socialism. 

Media coverage of the day in Parliament downplayed its significance, focusing instead on the reform of the supply chain law, while fundamental changes unfolded at a different level.

Politically, the event cannot be overstated; perhaps it should even be called a singularity in recent EU policy: The European Parliament paved the way for a dramatic dilution of corporate reporting obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the so-called due diligence rules (CSDDD). The unstoppable march toward a climate dictatorship has been abruptly halted.

The End of the ESG Machine

Advocates of the ESG doctrine—under which private industry is forced by lawmakers to integrate party-circulated environmental and social standards into corporate governance—suffered their first major setback. Reporting and due diligence obligations for companies have been so weakened that previously required climate-aligned transition plans at the corporate level are now eliminated. Responsibility for violations of the remaining rules now rests with national authorities, not Brussels, freeing multinational supply chains from massive oversight. The economy can, to some extent, escape the regulators’ grip—good news.

For companies in the fossil energy sector, new market incentives emerge: exports to Europe can be conducted more easily, as regulatory hurdles are lowered and bureaucratic reporting requirements drastically reduced. Overall, the adjustment allows companies greater flexibility in supply chains, reduces the compulsion to invest in renewable or CO₂-neutral projects, and makes European markets more attractive to fossil energy exporters.

Reality Check

The EU Commission has recently faced mounting pressure from both Washington and the key LNG supplier, Qatar. US Trade Secretary Howard Lutnick had months earlier called on US companies to simply ignore Europe’s ESG framework if it significantly impeded operations—a direct affront to Ursula von der Leyen, who likes to portray herself as the morally superior, untouchable guardian of EU trade.

Together, these forces launched an offensive to bring Brussels’ climate defense to its knees, where cognitive dissonance had taken hold and the undeniable drift of geopolitical power was being ignored.

We have clearly entered the era of resource dominance. Europe imports roughly 60% of its required energy. Its irrational war on baseload energy sources such as nuclear and coal has only deepened dependence.

In Brussels and EU branch capitals, the lesson is now unavoidable: being a resource-poor trading partner in negotiations reveals how Europe’s capital base has been massively weakened by EU policy. Europe has lost its historic dominant position. US President Trump, during negotiations with the EU, merely displayed what behind closed doors was already clear to everyone.

Keep reading

“It’s a Conspiracy. We Have to Investigate Them Immediately.” – Trump DESTROYS Climate Change Hoaxers and Slams Countries “Losing Their Ass” and Going Bankrupt for Green Energy

President Trump on Wednesday trolled the climate hoaxers, calling for an investigation into their corruption and lies about the climate, while speaking at a US-Saudi Investment Forum. 

“It’s a little conspiracy out there. We have to investigate them immediately. They probably are being investigated,” Trump appeared to joke during his speech at the Kennedy Center.

The United Nations and the Democratic Party have been pushing climate alarmism and signaling the imminent end of the world for decades to implement green energy policies and get rich off back-room deals.

In December 2008, former Vice President Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice-free in five years.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed in 2019 that life on the planet would end in 12 years unless the US addressed the threat of global warming.

In August 2022, Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which dedicated $369 billion to environmental programs and so-called clean energy. And 96% of the climate data used to justify this climate push is flawed. It was a scam.

Keep reading

Reality Caught Up To ‘Climate Change’

Western nations in particular spent trillions of dollars over the past half-century to subsidize expensive but erratic wind and solar energy while demonizing carbon fuels as toxic threats to the planet.

Like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dogma, climate change orthodoxy was embedded into every aspect of Western culture, from the corporate boardroom to the university campus.

Question whether man-made global warming was truly responsible for increased temperatures rather than natural, often centuries-long cycles of heating and cooling of the planet, and one was labeled a climate crank.

Everything from declining fertility to forest fires was ridiculously attributed to climate change.

But the causes of both demographic crises and charred landscapes were more likely the result of new affluent lifestyles that saw child-rearing as too expensive and time-consuming, and misguided forest policies or underfunded firefighting.

Yet reality has caught up with the near-religious climate change cult.

One, the left-wing tech billionaires—exemplified by former climate change zealot Bill Gates—have become apostates of the green movement.

Now they do not warn of a planet threatened by too much man-made heat but rather by too little man-made kilowattage.

They believe artificial intelligence will prove as transformative as the Industrial Revolution. But to win the AI revolution will require vast increases in electricity production, of up to a staggering 100 gigawatts a year of additional capacity.

Such enormous demand—to build the equivalent of a hundred huge power plants per year—is far beyond the ability of “renewables” alone.

Instead, the only solution is an “all of the above” strategy of building more nuclear, natural gas, clean-coal, wind, and solar generation plants.

Two, ascendant China’s massive arms buildup and its bullying Belt and Road imperialism have finally put international “climate accords” into question.

Even the environmentalist King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has recently let it slip that he is troubled by why Europe sandbagged its own economy by shutting down its formerly efficient nuclear and fossil fuel plants. He reminded the world that the European Union nations contribute only six percent of the planet’s carbon emissions.

The West finally realizes that a cynical China has been playing it for years by funding green propaganda abroad.

Indeed, Beijing guilt-tripped Europe and the U.S. on global warming while it exported billions of dollars of cheap wind and solar generation products—often below its own cost of production.

Meanwhile, China plows ahead, building two to three coal and nuclear generation plants per month.

Under the propagandistic banner of “climate change,” China hopes that its Western competitors invest in inefficient and high-priced renewable energy. Meanwhile, its own expanding fossil fuel and nuclear industries ensure it will enjoy global price advantages in both trade and armament.

Keep reading

Top MIT scientist blasts ‘climate hysteria,’ says global warming fears are driven by money… not evidence

Skepticism about climate change has resurfaced, as some experts claim the exact causes of global warming remain unclear and that the policies addressing it are motivated more by money than by science.

Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has spent decades studying atmospheric science. He told the Daily Mail that the public hysteria surrounding global warming isn’t actually based on realistic data.

Climate change is the term used to describe Earth’s warming, mainly as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas.

Scientists and climate activists have warned that this extra warmth could cause more extreme storms, rising seas that flood cities, and hotter summers that make it harder to grow food worldwide – all within the next 25 years.

However, Lindzen said the financial implications of controlling the multi-trillion-dollar energy industry have been the true motivation for politicians to support flawed research that argues small temperature increases will lead to immediate disasters.

‘The fact that you have a multi-trillion dollar industry and you have an opportunity to completely overturn it had a great appeal to a lot of politicians,’ he explained. ‘They go wild on it. Another half degree and we’re doomed, and so on. The public knows this is nonsense.’ 

Lindzen explained the basic math behind what he called ‘climate alarm.’ He said the emphasis on lowering specific emissions like carbon dioxide (CO₂) simply doesn’t produce the worldwide temperature changes advocates say it will.

The scientist noted that the planet’s temperature has fluctuated significantly throughout recorded history and science still can’t definitively prove what the exact cause of both extreme warming and cooling events has been.

‘We don’t understand the glaciation that occurred in the 15th century. You know, so what was going on then? Inadequate CO₂?’ Lindzen said of the event in the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.

Keep reading

UN makes “landmark” deal on information integrity to shut up annoying denialists

Look out. Climate Denialism is a “security threat” now

As the Net Zero fantasy crumbles and the political tide shifts, the Blob has up’d the ante and pressed the red hot “security threat” button. Climate deniers are now such a mortal threat (to the sinecures of the Blobcrats) they must be contained.

As David Archibald says “When they have lost the argument, they change the rules.”

Countries seal landmark declaration at COP30—marking first time information integrity is prioritized at UN Climate Conference

Drafted in collaboration with civil society members of the Global Initiative Advisory Group, the Declaration has been endorsed by ten countries so far – Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay. 

“Climate change is no longer a threat of the future; it is a tragedy of the present,” said President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Belém. “We live in an era in which obscurantists reject scientific evidence and attack institutions. It is time to deliver yet another defeat to denialism.”

Oh, the horrible obscurantists! Humanity will be saved, but only if governments can rule without having to answer difficult questions.

The UN must be feeling fragile because the term “denialism” is decidedly unscientific — it is the language of political and religious struggle, not of atmospheric physics.

Perhaps they’re afraid the world might recognize that the UN is a superfluous, bloodsucking freeloader?  To make themselves useful, the UN are providing an excuse for sympathetic (socialist) governments to launch information integrity commissions, or to fund “research” into misinformation online.

Keep reading